Why did Bush enact a completely different foreign policy to that which he espoused during the 2000 Presidential election campaign?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












11















I was watching a campaign video from 2000, in it Bush clearly thinks the USA's position as the 'world police' or that their foreign intervention strategy, especially ones that instill virtues on other sovereign states, are ill advised.



How is this reconciled with many choices he made as president, namely the Iraq war? Why did he change his tune?










share|improve this question




























    11















    I was watching a campaign video from 2000, in it Bush clearly thinks the USA's position as the 'world police' or that their foreign intervention strategy, especially ones that instill virtues on other sovereign states, are ill advised.



    How is this reconciled with many choices he made as president, namely the Iraq war? Why did he change his tune?










    share|improve this question


























      11












      11








      11


      1






      I was watching a campaign video from 2000, in it Bush clearly thinks the USA's position as the 'world police' or that their foreign intervention strategy, especially ones that instill virtues on other sovereign states, are ill advised.



      How is this reconciled with many choices he made as president, namely the Iraq war? Why did he change his tune?










      share|improve this question
















      I was watching a campaign video from 2000, in it Bush clearly thinks the USA's position as the 'world police' or that their foreign intervention strategy, especially ones that instill virtues on other sovereign states, are ill advised.



      How is this reconciled with many choices he made as president, namely the Iraq war? Why did he change his tune?







      united-states foreign-policy george-w-bush






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Mar 6 at 18:05









      Alexei

      17.5k2298176




      17.5k2298176










      asked Mar 2 at 23:18









      Name NamersonName Namerson

      634




      634




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          14














          I would like to point out that while Bush himself did make such statements, many of the key figures in his cabinet made completely opposite statements.



          10 of his cabinet members, including central ones such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, were signatories to the mission statement of a think-tank called The Project for a New American Century. This group had 25 signatories in total.



          PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."



          Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and David Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War.



          Key PNAC members had been advocating regime change in Iraq since 1998.



          One particular publication by PNAC which is discussed frequently is Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, published in September 2000. Here are some quotes from it which I consider signifigant:




          The immediate task is to rebuild today's force, ensuring that it is
          equal to the tasks before it: shaping the peacetime environment and
          winning multiple, simultaneous theater wars; these forces must be
          large enough to accomplish these tasks without running the “high” or
          “unacceptable” risks it faces now.






          None of the defense reviews of the past decade has weighed fully
          the range of missions demanded by U.S. global leadership: defending
          the homeland, fighting and winning multiple large-scale wars,
          conducting constabulary missions
          which preserve the current peace,
          and transforming the U.S. armed forces to exploit the “revolution
          in military affairs.”






          Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
          revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
          catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.




          Emphasis mine. I do not mean to imply anything by the last quote. Being one of the more famous quotes from the document, however, I felt I had to include it.



          I'd also like to point out that politicians do not always mean what they say, both during campaigns, elections, and their terms in office.



          Whether or not Bush truly did agree with the sentiments of PNAC before 9/11, the fact that he selected so many of its signatories for his cabinet is, in my opinion, more of a political statement than anything he said during his campaign. Actions speak louder than words. To give Bush the benefit of the doubt, it's possible that he simply did not know his cabinet members very well. That would be grossly incompetent, which is certainly possible. I do not speculate on his personal character or motives.



          Sources for claims about PNAC are in their own mission statement, and in the sources of the Wikipedia article on PNAC. Two sentences in this answer have been copied verbatim from Wikipedia.






          share|improve this answer

























          • “Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin” - who are they?

            – Andrew Grimm
            Mar 3 at 19:31






          • 2





            This reads like a conspiracy theory.

            – Sjoerd
            Mar 3 at 23:06






          • 6





            @Sjoerd While there is nothing wrong with conspiracy theories (people in power have conspired to do immoral or illegal things since the dawn of civilization, and theories are essential to scientific thought), which theory do you feel I am propagating here? I do not see that this answer is making any claims, other than those I have cited sources for, such as the mission statement of PNAC, etc. I have explicitly made no speculative claims in this answer.

            – Revetahw
            Mar 3 at 23:12







          • 2





            @Sjoerd This answer states that Bush selected people for his cabinet that had explicitly stated that they supported an interventionist foreign policy, which was at odds with his campaign rhetoric. That may fit the description of a conspiracy, as it may be deceptive to the voters. It is indeed also a theory, but I consider it supported by evidence, as those cabinet members had explicitly signed a mission statement. This answer does not make any other allegations.

            – Revetahw
            Mar 3 at 23:19







          • 4





            @Sjoerd Also, I'm puzzled how this term "conspiracy theory" can be thrown around, as if it's a logical argument. Bush lying about WMDs was a CT before it turned out to be correct. Watergate was a CT. Enron was. So I don't see why it's even relevant to note that something is a CT. If some theory appears false, one can take apart its arguments and evidence, or provide evidence to the contrary. Using a term like CT would appear to me to be a logical fallacy.

            – Revetahw
            Mar 4 at 10:56


















          14














          Sept. 11 changed everything. It demonstrated with the utmost clarity the risks of an unpoliced world.



          The first change was in Afghanistan. The Taliban had largely ruled Afghanistan since about 1996. The US certainly didn't like them, but also didn't view them as America's problem.



          On September 11, the NSA and German intelligence both intercepted communications pointing to Bin Laden. Some hijackers were identified while the planes were still in the air. Mohamed Atta's luggage, which did not make his flight, was also helpful.



          Already on Semptember 12, many in the US suspected that he was to blame.



          It also helped that the hijackers purchased their tickets using their real names. By September 14, the FBI released the names of the hijackers.



          Also on Sept. 14, Congress passed a law authorizing the military to attack anyone associated with terrorists. The vote was 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House.



          On Sept. 21, the Taliban refused a US demand to hand over Bin Laden. For Bush, that was plenty of reason to go to war. The US decision to overthrow the Taliban was supported by nearly everyone in the US.



          Then there was Iraq. Although he was not involved in planning them, Saddam Hussein originally praised the attacks. Saddam had used chemical weapons during the war against Iran, and he was refusing to cooperate with inspectors who were supposed to verify that he had given them up. Some people reasoned, wrongly, that if he didn't have anything to hide, he would be cooperating with the inspectors. And Saddam had a history of supporting terrorists, for example paying $25,000 to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber.



          Based on this, Bush made a case for war against Saddam. That was hotly debated at the time. Most Republicans were in favor. Some Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, were also in favor, while others, such as Barack Obama, were opposed. United Republican support and mixed Democratic sentiment was enough to get Congress to agree to the invasion.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 3





            Though this answer seems mostly correct, the segue into the Iraq war seems completely wrong. Other groups that praised the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were not attacked as was Iraq. There may (or may not) have been reasons for the US to attack Iraq, but praise for 9/11 was not one of them.

            – dotancohen
            Mar 3 at 15:36






          • 3





            "It demonstrated with the utmost clarity that even if the US were to adopt a policy of nonintervention in the rest of the world" I must have missed the part of the GW Bush presidency when he tried not intervening in the rest of the world..

            – Dan C
            Mar 3 at 16:10






          • 7





            @dotancohen My purpose in the answer was not to argue whether or not the invasion was correct. It was to show how 9/11 helped create the support that allowed it to happen.

            – William Jockusch
            Mar 3 at 16:35






          • 2





            @WilliamJockusch while 9/11 as a potential factor in changing his stance is very valid, the first sentence seems like an arbitrary political statement. One could equally say 9/11 proved that US interference, like sponsoring radical rebel groups, will eventually result in backlash. While the general claim is true - non-intervention does not guarantee non-intervention by others - the claim that this was proven by 9/11 is ridiculous given the lack of non-intervention politics before that.

            – Frank Hopkins
            Mar 5 at 17:17












          • A reasonable point. Edited above.

            – William Jockusch
            Mar 10 at 1:31


















          1





          +100









          During his presidential campaign GW Bush promised the kind of foreign policy that (he thought) would get him elected in 2000. Subsequently, he enacted a foreign policy that (he thought) would get him re-elected in 2004. The striking difference between the two is probably due to changing attitudes of the US electorate after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. One additional explanation of politicians doing different things when in power versus campaign promises is to look for sponsors who the politicians "owe" favours in return for financial support of their campaign.






          share|improve this answer























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "475"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39174%2fwhy-did-bush-enact-a-completely-different-foreign-policy-to-that-which-he-espous%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            14














            I would like to point out that while Bush himself did make such statements, many of the key figures in his cabinet made completely opposite statements.



            10 of his cabinet members, including central ones such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, were signatories to the mission statement of a think-tank called The Project for a New American Century. This group had 25 signatories in total.



            PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."



            Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and David Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War.



            Key PNAC members had been advocating regime change in Iraq since 1998.



            One particular publication by PNAC which is discussed frequently is Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, published in September 2000. Here are some quotes from it which I consider signifigant:




            The immediate task is to rebuild today's force, ensuring that it is
            equal to the tasks before it: shaping the peacetime environment and
            winning multiple, simultaneous theater wars; these forces must be
            large enough to accomplish these tasks without running the “high” or
            “unacceptable” risks it faces now.






            None of the defense reviews of the past decade has weighed fully
            the range of missions demanded by U.S. global leadership: defending
            the homeland, fighting and winning multiple large-scale wars,
            conducting constabulary missions
            which preserve the current peace,
            and transforming the U.S. armed forces to exploit the “revolution
            in military affairs.”






            Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
            revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
            catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.




            Emphasis mine. I do not mean to imply anything by the last quote. Being one of the more famous quotes from the document, however, I felt I had to include it.



            I'd also like to point out that politicians do not always mean what they say, both during campaigns, elections, and their terms in office.



            Whether or not Bush truly did agree with the sentiments of PNAC before 9/11, the fact that he selected so many of its signatories for his cabinet is, in my opinion, more of a political statement than anything he said during his campaign. Actions speak louder than words. To give Bush the benefit of the doubt, it's possible that he simply did not know his cabinet members very well. That would be grossly incompetent, which is certainly possible. I do not speculate on his personal character or motives.



            Sources for claims about PNAC are in their own mission statement, and in the sources of the Wikipedia article on PNAC. Two sentences in this answer have been copied verbatim from Wikipedia.






            share|improve this answer

























            • “Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin” - who are they?

              – Andrew Grimm
              Mar 3 at 19:31






            • 2





              This reads like a conspiracy theory.

              – Sjoerd
              Mar 3 at 23:06






            • 6





              @Sjoerd While there is nothing wrong with conspiracy theories (people in power have conspired to do immoral or illegal things since the dawn of civilization, and theories are essential to scientific thought), which theory do you feel I am propagating here? I do not see that this answer is making any claims, other than those I have cited sources for, such as the mission statement of PNAC, etc. I have explicitly made no speculative claims in this answer.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 3 at 23:12







            • 2





              @Sjoerd This answer states that Bush selected people for his cabinet that had explicitly stated that they supported an interventionist foreign policy, which was at odds with his campaign rhetoric. That may fit the description of a conspiracy, as it may be deceptive to the voters. It is indeed also a theory, but I consider it supported by evidence, as those cabinet members had explicitly signed a mission statement. This answer does not make any other allegations.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 3 at 23:19







            • 4





              @Sjoerd Also, I'm puzzled how this term "conspiracy theory" can be thrown around, as if it's a logical argument. Bush lying about WMDs was a CT before it turned out to be correct. Watergate was a CT. Enron was. So I don't see why it's even relevant to note that something is a CT. If some theory appears false, one can take apart its arguments and evidence, or provide evidence to the contrary. Using a term like CT would appear to me to be a logical fallacy.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 4 at 10:56















            14














            I would like to point out that while Bush himself did make such statements, many of the key figures in his cabinet made completely opposite statements.



            10 of his cabinet members, including central ones such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, were signatories to the mission statement of a think-tank called The Project for a New American Century. This group had 25 signatories in total.



            PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."



            Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and David Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War.



            Key PNAC members had been advocating regime change in Iraq since 1998.



            One particular publication by PNAC which is discussed frequently is Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, published in September 2000. Here are some quotes from it which I consider signifigant:




            The immediate task is to rebuild today's force, ensuring that it is
            equal to the tasks before it: shaping the peacetime environment and
            winning multiple, simultaneous theater wars; these forces must be
            large enough to accomplish these tasks without running the “high” or
            “unacceptable” risks it faces now.






            None of the defense reviews of the past decade has weighed fully
            the range of missions demanded by U.S. global leadership: defending
            the homeland, fighting and winning multiple large-scale wars,
            conducting constabulary missions
            which preserve the current peace,
            and transforming the U.S. armed forces to exploit the “revolution
            in military affairs.”






            Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
            revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
            catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.




            Emphasis mine. I do not mean to imply anything by the last quote. Being one of the more famous quotes from the document, however, I felt I had to include it.



            I'd also like to point out that politicians do not always mean what they say, both during campaigns, elections, and their terms in office.



            Whether or not Bush truly did agree with the sentiments of PNAC before 9/11, the fact that he selected so many of its signatories for his cabinet is, in my opinion, more of a political statement than anything he said during his campaign. Actions speak louder than words. To give Bush the benefit of the doubt, it's possible that he simply did not know his cabinet members very well. That would be grossly incompetent, which is certainly possible. I do not speculate on his personal character or motives.



            Sources for claims about PNAC are in their own mission statement, and in the sources of the Wikipedia article on PNAC. Two sentences in this answer have been copied verbatim from Wikipedia.






            share|improve this answer

























            • “Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin” - who are they?

              – Andrew Grimm
              Mar 3 at 19:31






            • 2





              This reads like a conspiracy theory.

              – Sjoerd
              Mar 3 at 23:06






            • 6





              @Sjoerd While there is nothing wrong with conspiracy theories (people in power have conspired to do immoral or illegal things since the dawn of civilization, and theories are essential to scientific thought), which theory do you feel I am propagating here? I do not see that this answer is making any claims, other than those I have cited sources for, such as the mission statement of PNAC, etc. I have explicitly made no speculative claims in this answer.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 3 at 23:12







            • 2





              @Sjoerd This answer states that Bush selected people for his cabinet that had explicitly stated that they supported an interventionist foreign policy, which was at odds with his campaign rhetoric. That may fit the description of a conspiracy, as it may be deceptive to the voters. It is indeed also a theory, but I consider it supported by evidence, as those cabinet members had explicitly signed a mission statement. This answer does not make any other allegations.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 3 at 23:19







            • 4





              @Sjoerd Also, I'm puzzled how this term "conspiracy theory" can be thrown around, as if it's a logical argument. Bush lying about WMDs was a CT before it turned out to be correct. Watergate was a CT. Enron was. So I don't see why it's even relevant to note that something is a CT. If some theory appears false, one can take apart its arguments and evidence, or provide evidence to the contrary. Using a term like CT would appear to me to be a logical fallacy.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 4 at 10:56













            14












            14








            14







            I would like to point out that while Bush himself did make such statements, many of the key figures in his cabinet made completely opposite statements.



            10 of his cabinet members, including central ones such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, were signatories to the mission statement of a think-tank called The Project for a New American Century. This group had 25 signatories in total.



            PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."



            Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and David Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War.



            Key PNAC members had been advocating regime change in Iraq since 1998.



            One particular publication by PNAC which is discussed frequently is Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, published in September 2000. Here are some quotes from it which I consider signifigant:




            The immediate task is to rebuild today's force, ensuring that it is
            equal to the tasks before it: shaping the peacetime environment and
            winning multiple, simultaneous theater wars; these forces must be
            large enough to accomplish these tasks without running the “high” or
            “unacceptable” risks it faces now.






            None of the defense reviews of the past decade has weighed fully
            the range of missions demanded by U.S. global leadership: defending
            the homeland, fighting and winning multiple large-scale wars,
            conducting constabulary missions
            which preserve the current peace,
            and transforming the U.S. armed forces to exploit the “revolution
            in military affairs.”






            Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
            revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
            catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.




            Emphasis mine. I do not mean to imply anything by the last quote. Being one of the more famous quotes from the document, however, I felt I had to include it.



            I'd also like to point out that politicians do not always mean what they say, both during campaigns, elections, and their terms in office.



            Whether or not Bush truly did agree with the sentiments of PNAC before 9/11, the fact that he selected so many of its signatories for his cabinet is, in my opinion, more of a political statement than anything he said during his campaign. Actions speak louder than words. To give Bush the benefit of the doubt, it's possible that he simply did not know his cabinet members very well. That would be grossly incompetent, which is certainly possible. I do not speculate on his personal character or motives.



            Sources for claims about PNAC are in their own mission statement, and in the sources of the Wikipedia article on PNAC. Two sentences in this answer have been copied verbatim from Wikipedia.






            share|improve this answer















            I would like to point out that while Bush himself did make such statements, many of the key figures in his cabinet made completely opposite statements.



            10 of his cabinet members, including central ones such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, were signatories to the mission statement of a think-tank called The Project for a New American Century. This group had 25 signatories in total.



            PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."



            Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and David Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War.



            Key PNAC members had been advocating regime change in Iraq since 1998.



            One particular publication by PNAC which is discussed frequently is Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, published in September 2000. Here are some quotes from it which I consider signifigant:




            The immediate task is to rebuild today's force, ensuring that it is
            equal to the tasks before it: shaping the peacetime environment and
            winning multiple, simultaneous theater wars; these forces must be
            large enough to accomplish these tasks without running the “high” or
            “unacceptable” risks it faces now.






            None of the defense reviews of the past decade has weighed fully
            the range of missions demanded by U.S. global leadership: defending
            the homeland, fighting and winning multiple large-scale wars,
            conducting constabulary missions
            which preserve the current peace,
            and transforming the U.S. armed forces to exploit the “revolution
            in military affairs.”






            Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
            revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
            catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.




            Emphasis mine. I do not mean to imply anything by the last quote. Being one of the more famous quotes from the document, however, I felt I had to include it.



            I'd also like to point out that politicians do not always mean what they say, both during campaigns, elections, and their terms in office.



            Whether or not Bush truly did agree with the sentiments of PNAC before 9/11, the fact that he selected so many of its signatories for his cabinet is, in my opinion, more of a political statement than anything he said during his campaign. Actions speak louder than words. To give Bush the benefit of the doubt, it's possible that he simply did not know his cabinet members very well. That would be grossly incompetent, which is certainly possible. I do not speculate on his personal character or motives.



            Sources for claims about PNAC are in their own mission statement, and in the sources of the Wikipedia article on PNAC. Two sentences in this answer have been copied verbatim from Wikipedia.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Mar 3 at 19:48

























            answered Mar 3 at 12:27









            RevetahwRevetahw

            1,6721827




            1,6721827












            • “Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin” - who are they?

              – Andrew Grimm
              Mar 3 at 19:31






            • 2





              This reads like a conspiracy theory.

              – Sjoerd
              Mar 3 at 23:06






            • 6





              @Sjoerd While there is nothing wrong with conspiracy theories (people in power have conspired to do immoral or illegal things since the dawn of civilization, and theories are essential to scientific thought), which theory do you feel I am propagating here? I do not see that this answer is making any claims, other than those I have cited sources for, such as the mission statement of PNAC, etc. I have explicitly made no speculative claims in this answer.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 3 at 23:12







            • 2





              @Sjoerd This answer states that Bush selected people for his cabinet that had explicitly stated that they supported an interventionist foreign policy, which was at odds with his campaign rhetoric. That may fit the description of a conspiracy, as it may be deceptive to the voters. It is indeed also a theory, but I consider it supported by evidence, as those cabinet members had explicitly signed a mission statement. This answer does not make any other allegations.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 3 at 23:19







            • 4





              @Sjoerd Also, I'm puzzled how this term "conspiracy theory" can be thrown around, as if it's a logical argument. Bush lying about WMDs was a CT before it turned out to be correct. Watergate was a CT. Enron was. So I don't see why it's even relevant to note that something is a CT. If some theory appears false, one can take apart its arguments and evidence, or provide evidence to the contrary. Using a term like CT would appear to me to be a logical fallacy.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 4 at 10:56

















            • “Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin” - who are they?

              – Andrew Grimm
              Mar 3 at 19:31






            • 2





              This reads like a conspiracy theory.

              – Sjoerd
              Mar 3 at 23:06






            • 6





              @Sjoerd While there is nothing wrong with conspiracy theories (people in power have conspired to do immoral or illegal things since the dawn of civilization, and theories are essential to scientific thought), which theory do you feel I am propagating here? I do not see that this answer is making any claims, other than those I have cited sources for, such as the mission statement of PNAC, etc. I have explicitly made no speculative claims in this answer.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 3 at 23:12







            • 2





              @Sjoerd This answer states that Bush selected people for his cabinet that had explicitly stated that they supported an interventionist foreign policy, which was at odds with his campaign rhetoric. That may fit the description of a conspiracy, as it may be deceptive to the voters. It is indeed also a theory, but I consider it supported by evidence, as those cabinet members had explicitly signed a mission statement. This answer does not make any other allegations.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 3 at 23:19







            • 4





              @Sjoerd Also, I'm puzzled how this term "conspiracy theory" can be thrown around, as if it's a logical argument. Bush lying about WMDs was a CT before it turned out to be correct. Watergate was a CT. Enron was. So I don't see why it's even relevant to note that something is a CT. If some theory appears false, one can take apart its arguments and evidence, or provide evidence to the contrary. Using a term like CT would appear to me to be a logical fallacy.

              – Revetahw
              Mar 4 at 10:56
















            “Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin” - who are they?

            – Andrew Grimm
            Mar 3 at 19:31





            “Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin” - who are they?

            – Andrew Grimm
            Mar 3 at 19:31




            2




            2





            This reads like a conspiracy theory.

            – Sjoerd
            Mar 3 at 23:06





            This reads like a conspiracy theory.

            – Sjoerd
            Mar 3 at 23:06




            6




            6





            @Sjoerd While there is nothing wrong with conspiracy theories (people in power have conspired to do immoral or illegal things since the dawn of civilization, and theories are essential to scientific thought), which theory do you feel I am propagating here? I do not see that this answer is making any claims, other than those I have cited sources for, such as the mission statement of PNAC, etc. I have explicitly made no speculative claims in this answer.

            – Revetahw
            Mar 3 at 23:12






            @Sjoerd While there is nothing wrong with conspiracy theories (people in power have conspired to do immoral or illegal things since the dawn of civilization, and theories are essential to scientific thought), which theory do you feel I am propagating here? I do not see that this answer is making any claims, other than those I have cited sources for, such as the mission statement of PNAC, etc. I have explicitly made no speculative claims in this answer.

            – Revetahw
            Mar 3 at 23:12





            2




            2





            @Sjoerd This answer states that Bush selected people for his cabinet that had explicitly stated that they supported an interventionist foreign policy, which was at odds with his campaign rhetoric. That may fit the description of a conspiracy, as it may be deceptive to the voters. It is indeed also a theory, but I consider it supported by evidence, as those cabinet members had explicitly signed a mission statement. This answer does not make any other allegations.

            – Revetahw
            Mar 3 at 23:19






            @Sjoerd This answer states that Bush selected people for his cabinet that had explicitly stated that they supported an interventionist foreign policy, which was at odds with his campaign rhetoric. That may fit the description of a conspiracy, as it may be deceptive to the voters. It is indeed also a theory, but I consider it supported by evidence, as those cabinet members had explicitly signed a mission statement. This answer does not make any other allegations.

            – Revetahw
            Mar 3 at 23:19





            4




            4





            @Sjoerd Also, I'm puzzled how this term "conspiracy theory" can be thrown around, as if it's a logical argument. Bush lying about WMDs was a CT before it turned out to be correct. Watergate was a CT. Enron was. So I don't see why it's even relevant to note that something is a CT. If some theory appears false, one can take apart its arguments and evidence, or provide evidence to the contrary. Using a term like CT would appear to me to be a logical fallacy.

            – Revetahw
            Mar 4 at 10:56





            @Sjoerd Also, I'm puzzled how this term "conspiracy theory" can be thrown around, as if it's a logical argument. Bush lying about WMDs was a CT before it turned out to be correct. Watergate was a CT. Enron was. So I don't see why it's even relevant to note that something is a CT. If some theory appears false, one can take apart its arguments and evidence, or provide evidence to the contrary. Using a term like CT would appear to me to be a logical fallacy.

            – Revetahw
            Mar 4 at 10:56











            14














            Sept. 11 changed everything. It demonstrated with the utmost clarity the risks of an unpoliced world.



            The first change was in Afghanistan. The Taliban had largely ruled Afghanistan since about 1996. The US certainly didn't like them, but also didn't view them as America's problem.



            On September 11, the NSA and German intelligence both intercepted communications pointing to Bin Laden. Some hijackers were identified while the planes were still in the air. Mohamed Atta's luggage, which did not make his flight, was also helpful.



            Already on Semptember 12, many in the US suspected that he was to blame.



            It also helped that the hijackers purchased their tickets using their real names. By September 14, the FBI released the names of the hijackers.



            Also on Sept. 14, Congress passed a law authorizing the military to attack anyone associated with terrorists. The vote was 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House.



            On Sept. 21, the Taliban refused a US demand to hand over Bin Laden. For Bush, that was plenty of reason to go to war. The US decision to overthrow the Taliban was supported by nearly everyone in the US.



            Then there was Iraq. Although he was not involved in planning them, Saddam Hussein originally praised the attacks. Saddam had used chemical weapons during the war against Iran, and he was refusing to cooperate with inspectors who were supposed to verify that he had given them up. Some people reasoned, wrongly, that if he didn't have anything to hide, he would be cooperating with the inspectors. And Saddam had a history of supporting terrorists, for example paying $25,000 to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber.



            Based on this, Bush made a case for war against Saddam. That was hotly debated at the time. Most Republicans were in favor. Some Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, were also in favor, while others, such as Barack Obama, were opposed. United Republican support and mixed Democratic sentiment was enough to get Congress to agree to the invasion.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 3





              Though this answer seems mostly correct, the segue into the Iraq war seems completely wrong. Other groups that praised the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were not attacked as was Iraq. There may (or may not) have been reasons for the US to attack Iraq, but praise for 9/11 was not one of them.

              – dotancohen
              Mar 3 at 15:36






            • 3





              "It demonstrated with the utmost clarity that even if the US were to adopt a policy of nonintervention in the rest of the world" I must have missed the part of the GW Bush presidency when he tried not intervening in the rest of the world..

              – Dan C
              Mar 3 at 16:10






            • 7





              @dotancohen My purpose in the answer was not to argue whether or not the invasion was correct. It was to show how 9/11 helped create the support that allowed it to happen.

              – William Jockusch
              Mar 3 at 16:35






            • 2





              @WilliamJockusch while 9/11 as a potential factor in changing his stance is very valid, the first sentence seems like an arbitrary political statement. One could equally say 9/11 proved that US interference, like sponsoring radical rebel groups, will eventually result in backlash. While the general claim is true - non-intervention does not guarantee non-intervention by others - the claim that this was proven by 9/11 is ridiculous given the lack of non-intervention politics before that.

              – Frank Hopkins
              Mar 5 at 17:17












            • A reasonable point. Edited above.

              – William Jockusch
              Mar 10 at 1:31















            14














            Sept. 11 changed everything. It demonstrated with the utmost clarity the risks of an unpoliced world.



            The first change was in Afghanistan. The Taliban had largely ruled Afghanistan since about 1996. The US certainly didn't like them, but also didn't view them as America's problem.



            On September 11, the NSA and German intelligence both intercepted communications pointing to Bin Laden. Some hijackers were identified while the planes were still in the air. Mohamed Atta's luggage, which did not make his flight, was also helpful.



            Already on Semptember 12, many in the US suspected that he was to blame.



            It also helped that the hijackers purchased their tickets using their real names. By September 14, the FBI released the names of the hijackers.



            Also on Sept. 14, Congress passed a law authorizing the military to attack anyone associated with terrorists. The vote was 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House.



            On Sept. 21, the Taliban refused a US demand to hand over Bin Laden. For Bush, that was plenty of reason to go to war. The US decision to overthrow the Taliban was supported by nearly everyone in the US.



            Then there was Iraq. Although he was not involved in planning them, Saddam Hussein originally praised the attacks. Saddam had used chemical weapons during the war against Iran, and he was refusing to cooperate with inspectors who were supposed to verify that he had given them up. Some people reasoned, wrongly, that if he didn't have anything to hide, he would be cooperating with the inspectors. And Saddam had a history of supporting terrorists, for example paying $25,000 to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber.



            Based on this, Bush made a case for war against Saddam. That was hotly debated at the time. Most Republicans were in favor. Some Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, were also in favor, while others, such as Barack Obama, were opposed. United Republican support and mixed Democratic sentiment was enough to get Congress to agree to the invasion.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 3





              Though this answer seems mostly correct, the segue into the Iraq war seems completely wrong. Other groups that praised the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were not attacked as was Iraq. There may (or may not) have been reasons for the US to attack Iraq, but praise for 9/11 was not one of them.

              – dotancohen
              Mar 3 at 15:36






            • 3





              "It demonstrated with the utmost clarity that even if the US were to adopt a policy of nonintervention in the rest of the world" I must have missed the part of the GW Bush presidency when he tried not intervening in the rest of the world..

              – Dan C
              Mar 3 at 16:10






            • 7





              @dotancohen My purpose in the answer was not to argue whether or not the invasion was correct. It was to show how 9/11 helped create the support that allowed it to happen.

              – William Jockusch
              Mar 3 at 16:35






            • 2





              @WilliamJockusch while 9/11 as a potential factor in changing his stance is very valid, the first sentence seems like an arbitrary political statement. One could equally say 9/11 proved that US interference, like sponsoring radical rebel groups, will eventually result in backlash. While the general claim is true - non-intervention does not guarantee non-intervention by others - the claim that this was proven by 9/11 is ridiculous given the lack of non-intervention politics before that.

              – Frank Hopkins
              Mar 5 at 17:17












            • A reasonable point. Edited above.

              – William Jockusch
              Mar 10 at 1:31













            14












            14








            14







            Sept. 11 changed everything. It demonstrated with the utmost clarity the risks of an unpoliced world.



            The first change was in Afghanistan. The Taliban had largely ruled Afghanistan since about 1996. The US certainly didn't like them, but also didn't view them as America's problem.



            On September 11, the NSA and German intelligence both intercepted communications pointing to Bin Laden. Some hijackers were identified while the planes were still in the air. Mohamed Atta's luggage, which did not make his flight, was also helpful.



            Already on Semptember 12, many in the US suspected that he was to blame.



            It also helped that the hijackers purchased their tickets using their real names. By September 14, the FBI released the names of the hijackers.



            Also on Sept. 14, Congress passed a law authorizing the military to attack anyone associated with terrorists. The vote was 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House.



            On Sept. 21, the Taliban refused a US demand to hand over Bin Laden. For Bush, that was plenty of reason to go to war. The US decision to overthrow the Taliban was supported by nearly everyone in the US.



            Then there was Iraq. Although he was not involved in planning them, Saddam Hussein originally praised the attacks. Saddam had used chemical weapons during the war against Iran, and he was refusing to cooperate with inspectors who were supposed to verify that he had given them up. Some people reasoned, wrongly, that if he didn't have anything to hide, he would be cooperating with the inspectors. And Saddam had a history of supporting terrorists, for example paying $25,000 to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber.



            Based on this, Bush made a case for war against Saddam. That was hotly debated at the time. Most Republicans were in favor. Some Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, were also in favor, while others, such as Barack Obama, were opposed. United Republican support and mixed Democratic sentiment was enough to get Congress to agree to the invasion.






            share|improve this answer















            Sept. 11 changed everything. It demonstrated with the utmost clarity the risks of an unpoliced world.



            The first change was in Afghanistan. The Taliban had largely ruled Afghanistan since about 1996. The US certainly didn't like them, but also didn't view them as America's problem.



            On September 11, the NSA and German intelligence both intercepted communications pointing to Bin Laden. Some hijackers were identified while the planes were still in the air. Mohamed Atta's luggage, which did not make his flight, was also helpful.



            Already on Semptember 12, many in the US suspected that he was to blame.



            It also helped that the hijackers purchased their tickets using their real names. By September 14, the FBI released the names of the hijackers.



            Also on Sept. 14, Congress passed a law authorizing the military to attack anyone associated with terrorists. The vote was 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House.



            On Sept. 21, the Taliban refused a US demand to hand over Bin Laden. For Bush, that was plenty of reason to go to war. The US decision to overthrow the Taliban was supported by nearly everyone in the US.



            Then there was Iraq. Although he was not involved in planning them, Saddam Hussein originally praised the attacks. Saddam had used chemical weapons during the war against Iran, and he was refusing to cooperate with inspectors who were supposed to verify that he had given them up. Some people reasoned, wrongly, that if he didn't have anything to hide, he would be cooperating with the inspectors. And Saddam had a history of supporting terrorists, for example paying $25,000 to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber.



            Based on this, Bush made a case for war against Saddam. That was hotly debated at the time. Most Republicans were in favor. Some Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, were also in favor, while others, such as Barack Obama, were opposed. United Republican support and mixed Democratic sentiment was enough to get Congress to agree to the invasion.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Mar 10 at 1:31

























            answered Mar 3 at 1:21









            William JockuschWilliam Jockusch

            1,9901316




            1,9901316







            • 3





              Though this answer seems mostly correct, the segue into the Iraq war seems completely wrong. Other groups that praised the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were not attacked as was Iraq. There may (or may not) have been reasons for the US to attack Iraq, but praise for 9/11 was not one of them.

              – dotancohen
              Mar 3 at 15:36






            • 3





              "It demonstrated with the utmost clarity that even if the US were to adopt a policy of nonintervention in the rest of the world" I must have missed the part of the GW Bush presidency when he tried not intervening in the rest of the world..

              – Dan C
              Mar 3 at 16:10






            • 7





              @dotancohen My purpose in the answer was not to argue whether or not the invasion was correct. It was to show how 9/11 helped create the support that allowed it to happen.

              – William Jockusch
              Mar 3 at 16:35






            • 2





              @WilliamJockusch while 9/11 as a potential factor in changing his stance is very valid, the first sentence seems like an arbitrary political statement. One could equally say 9/11 proved that US interference, like sponsoring radical rebel groups, will eventually result in backlash. While the general claim is true - non-intervention does not guarantee non-intervention by others - the claim that this was proven by 9/11 is ridiculous given the lack of non-intervention politics before that.

              – Frank Hopkins
              Mar 5 at 17:17












            • A reasonable point. Edited above.

              – William Jockusch
              Mar 10 at 1:31












            • 3





              Though this answer seems mostly correct, the segue into the Iraq war seems completely wrong. Other groups that praised the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were not attacked as was Iraq. There may (or may not) have been reasons for the US to attack Iraq, but praise for 9/11 was not one of them.

              – dotancohen
              Mar 3 at 15:36






            • 3





              "It demonstrated with the utmost clarity that even if the US were to adopt a policy of nonintervention in the rest of the world" I must have missed the part of the GW Bush presidency when he tried not intervening in the rest of the world..

              – Dan C
              Mar 3 at 16:10






            • 7





              @dotancohen My purpose in the answer was not to argue whether or not the invasion was correct. It was to show how 9/11 helped create the support that allowed it to happen.

              – William Jockusch
              Mar 3 at 16:35






            • 2





              @WilliamJockusch while 9/11 as a potential factor in changing his stance is very valid, the first sentence seems like an arbitrary political statement. One could equally say 9/11 proved that US interference, like sponsoring radical rebel groups, will eventually result in backlash. While the general claim is true - non-intervention does not guarantee non-intervention by others - the claim that this was proven by 9/11 is ridiculous given the lack of non-intervention politics before that.

              – Frank Hopkins
              Mar 5 at 17:17












            • A reasonable point. Edited above.

              – William Jockusch
              Mar 10 at 1:31







            3




            3





            Though this answer seems mostly correct, the segue into the Iraq war seems completely wrong. Other groups that praised the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were not attacked as was Iraq. There may (or may not) have been reasons for the US to attack Iraq, but praise for 9/11 was not one of them.

            – dotancohen
            Mar 3 at 15:36





            Though this answer seems mostly correct, the segue into the Iraq war seems completely wrong. Other groups that praised the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were not attacked as was Iraq. There may (or may not) have been reasons for the US to attack Iraq, but praise for 9/11 was not one of them.

            – dotancohen
            Mar 3 at 15:36




            3




            3





            "It demonstrated with the utmost clarity that even if the US were to adopt a policy of nonintervention in the rest of the world" I must have missed the part of the GW Bush presidency when he tried not intervening in the rest of the world..

            – Dan C
            Mar 3 at 16:10





            "It demonstrated with the utmost clarity that even if the US were to adopt a policy of nonintervention in the rest of the world" I must have missed the part of the GW Bush presidency when he tried not intervening in the rest of the world..

            – Dan C
            Mar 3 at 16:10




            7




            7





            @dotancohen My purpose in the answer was not to argue whether or not the invasion was correct. It was to show how 9/11 helped create the support that allowed it to happen.

            – William Jockusch
            Mar 3 at 16:35





            @dotancohen My purpose in the answer was not to argue whether or not the invasion was correct. It was to show how 9/11 helped create the support that allowed it to happen.

            – William Jockusch
            Mar 3 at 16:35




            2




            2





            @WilliamJockusch while 9/11 as a potential factor in changing his stance is very valid, the first sentence seems like an arbitrary political statement. One could equally say 9/11 proved that US interference, like sponsoring radical rebel groups, will eventually result in backlash. While the general claim is true - non-intervention does not guarantee non-intervention by others - the claim that this was proven by 9/11 is ridiculous given the lack of non-intervention politics before that.

            – Frank Hopkins
            Mar 5 at 17:17






            @WilliamJockusch while 9/11 as a potential factor in changing his stance is very valid, the first sentence seems like an arbitrary political statement. One could equally say 9/11 proved that US interference, like sponsoring radical rebel groups, will eventually result in backlash. While the general claim is true - non-intervention does not guarantee non-intervention by others - the claim that this was proven by 9/11 is ridiculous given the lack of non-intervention politics before that.

            – Frank Hopkins
            Mar 5 at 17:17














            A reasonable point. Edited above.

            – William Jockusch
            Mar 10 at 1:31





            A reasonable point. Edited above.

            – William Jockusch
            Mar 10 at 1:31











            1





            +100









            During his presidential campaign GW Bush promised the kind of foreign policy that (he thought) would get him elected in 2000. Subsequently, he enacted a foreign policy that (he thought) would get him re-elected in 2004. The striking difference between the two is probably due to changing attitudes of the US electorate after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. One additional explanation of politicians doing different things when in power versus campaign promises is to look for sponsors who the politicians "owe" favours in return for financial support of their campaign.






            share|improve this answer



























              1





              +100









              During his presidential campaign GW Bush promised the kind of foreign policy that (he thought) would get him elected in 2000. Subsequently, he enacted a foreign policy that (he thought) would get him re-elected in 2004. The striking difference between the two is probably due to changing attitudes of the US electorate after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. One additional explanation of politicians doing different things when in power versus campaign promises is to look for sponsors who the politicians "owe" favours in return for financial support of their campaign.






              share|improve this answer

























                1





                +100







                1





                +100



                1




                +100





                During his presidential campaign GW Bush promised the kind of foreign policy that (he thought) would get him elected in 2000. Subsequently, he enacted a foreign policy that (he thought) would get him re-elected in 2004. The striking difference between the two is probably due to changing attitudes of the US electorate after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. One additional explanation of politicians doing different things when in power versus campaign promises is to look for sponsors who the politicians "owe" favours in return for financial support of their campaign.






                share|improve this answer













                During his presidential campaign GW Bush promised the kind of foreign policy that (he thought) would get him elected in 2000. Subsequently, he enacted a foreign policy that (he thought) would get him re-elected in 2004. The striking difference between the two is probably due to changing attitudes of the US electorate after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. One additional explanation of politicians doing different things when in power versus campaign promises is to look for sponsors who the politicians "owe" favours in return for financial support of their campaign.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Mar 3 at 18:56









                user2705196user2705196

                33014




                33014



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39174%2fwhy-did-bush-enact-a-completely-different-foreign-policy-to-that-which-he-espous%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown






                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                    Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                    How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?